Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 04:53 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4F0130E13 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UlyppjBCTkVA for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFD74130DDB for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id s21-v6so15245733pfm.6 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T3IRhsoN1FiF00RWFICMfWTFp9y9iFu2NShSvsTsDDY=; b=Bs898zYtXsjdAGSCNS82QnlvctJZil3tdk8j7xs//H01CRzNOy45ebeI0HBK5S9Q+3 EMU4eU6594i3JehPfAdOjwymdXWwkwKMya4zHkdyXpl684/lmdEc4JLsGC7S9vhvsjZo hPRlDB1tFN0NmxwnKSV8rfWAXb52OKkSX8WWNVZ39gxB0mILZP+sfm4Tym+l/XL1AgmW xZ7R6trnd1uwn+vPsraASiMCL0glPVjWiIwibrhvY3w655MJI6sVEmmS0+Uk0IqzHWwc qawN1n8/G9iRjzMTHU0kp9/7QvFynxezJiPkb8zyQQaGTz4Czl3eEj8cZ5fstWCKa9mu 9YQw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T3IRhsoN1FiF00RWFICMfWTFp9y9iFu2NShSvsTsDDY=; b=akkca6WSNTrj9J4uVqSscLK7AOS99BU1ojxLirQZ5lyW7bi0Oh3gafGlXRsMVIGZc7 FeQLBfPQE24nxl23OBp8l9r4JTLbToHAwVkR53d8tvhzTDvHdtJbkiwO4SK60/NZ6HS8 DJBmgx1f1LEm18W/JNN3ciR5KKalV/mdGhfTQpjw4Yw3BslBhVLp2FKVOq0MAXoINXBV V8qWbWLOwEHwyshbmyMuZcCkSaRpYv04OWSchGUVO9+Lst0/I/l97+8ZO55E7+NvPeSt pdkwcTJAWM6QVS3o//fRbiFoPMdELl3mVpSAAAOouhgJjhU1pFXI+jSU3eNnP4+zwhL6 IlaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3FmLoQJZqWsAOUqISuiZ3QsJS2vgKrnSmEuL87aVQjJHmq97wR TkCP6ROcux9GUL0MM82b0miL3w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpf08bNScP0j9z+pMB3cjOrJLQC3++qi6BZcGHScQseFVVwL6CwLwhv8gbH/XA6IGE6UzIzJGA==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:ce81:: with SMTP id y123-v6mr24272516pfg.95.1531198425107; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.38] ([118.148.121.80]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o12-v6sm11062521pgd.71.2018.07.09.21.53.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 09 Jul 2018 21:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
References: <888b184e-51ea-23fc-afaa-f9b5116d480a@gmail.com> <0dbf07da-969c-9704-9618-8d3d7ff03004@nostrum.com> <7787043f-1ab0-f957-2d26-e915009c4d3f@nostrum.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10f6771e-7de6-530d-0c7b-4b347a23612c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:53:42 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7787043f-1ab0-f957-2d26-e915009c4d3f@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/NAUQpJzR2TNjAh2zb2DmBrdLngI>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 04:53:48 -0000
On 10/07/2018 14:49, Robert Sparks wrote: > _sigh_ - even after carefully trying to point to a particular edge, I > transcribed the number incorrectly. > > Please substitute 5289 for all the rfc number examples I pointed to below. Right. My thinking is that the label would indeed need to be ephemeral in case a document changes status, and I guess that would lead to tombstones in the citation libraries. Or to put it another way, a document would have a label stack, with the current label on top, but the previous ones still there for the sake of previous citations. So the label stack for RFC5289 should** be 1. RFC5289-PS 2. RFC5289-INFO and that for RFC2460 should be 1. RFC2460-OBS 2. RFC2460-DS ** However, you have hit upon a bug. The IESG may believe that they upgraded RFC5289, but it seems that nobody told the RFC Editor, since it is still officially listed as Informational. Even the tracker is confused. So we have a procedural glitch in this area already. Brian > > RjS > > p.s. > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-uplifting-rfc5289-to-ps/> > > > On 7/9/18 9:44 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> >> >> On 7/9/18 9:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't think there's any disagreement that better labels are >>> desirable. I do think this would all be a lot simpler if we >>> could just agree to move to a single-stage standards track, >>> but since we must support status changes within the standards >>> track, including obsoletion, we are forced to have external >>> labels that are not in the archived format. That's an opportunity >>> as well as a challenge. So here's a proposal: >>> >>> 1) Continue to use the RFC series as today for multiple purposes. >>> But recognise more clearly that the number is an archival reference. >>> >>> 2) For all normal purposes, including citations, use a *qualified* >>> label. Rather than writing a formal definition, there's an example >>> of each qualifier below. >>> >>> An advantage is that this can be retrofitted straightforwardly >>> to *all* RFCs, indexes, citation libraries, etc. >> If we were to pursue this path: >> >> That's not quite straightforward. It's easy if you just snapshot the >> current qualifiers, but if you want to be historically correct, it's >> going to take some non-straightforward work. It would also need a >> decision about edges like the following (both for handling what has >> happened, and what could happen in the future): >> >> Would RFC5249-INFO and RFC5249-PS be different documents, or aliases >> for the same document? (I assume having RFC5249-INFO disappear from >> the archival record would be unacceptable). How would a user finding >> RFC5249-INFO learn about RFC5249-PS? (And a string of very familiar >> questions would follow here). >>> And it >>> could be removed just as easily if it proves to be a problem >>> rather than a solution. >>> >>> RFC8200-STD (or RFC8200-STD86) >>> RFC8414-PS >>> RFC5681-DS >>> RFC2026-BCP (or RFC2026-BCP9) >>> >>> RFC7557-EXPT >>> RFC8394-INFO (for IETF informationals) >>> RFC7663-IAB >>> RFC7575-RSCH (for IRTF informationals) >>> RFC8351-INDEP (for Independent informationals) >>> >>> RFC2460-OBS >>> RFC1128-UNK >>> RFC1130-HIST >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rfcplusplus mailing list >>> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rfcplusplus mailing list >> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus > > _______________________________________________ > Rfcplusplus mailing list > Rfcplusplus@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus >
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Robert Sparks
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Robert Sparks
- [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Alice Russo
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Alice Russo
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Qualified labels Brian E Carpenter